16 OBLIGATION TO TAKE DOMESTIC MEASURES 60. The Inter-American Commission requested the Court to order Peru to take the following measures to make reparation for the damage suffered: that it conduct an exhaustive, serious and impartial investigation to identify the authors of the violations that had been declared and eventually punish them, in accordance with the applicable constitutional, legal and administrative provisions, and that it adopt the necessary measures under domestic law so that the State authorities comply with the judgments delivered by the judges and courts of the Peruvian Judiciary regarding habeas corpus and the protection of the fundamental rights and freedoms and ensure that they are complied with, in order to make Article 25 of the American Convention fully effective. 61. Neither the victim nor the State referred to this matter. 62. As this Court has indicated “the investigation of the facts and the punishment of those responsible, [...] is incumbent upon the State whenever there has been a human rights violation and that obligation must be discharged seriously and not as a mere formality.”23 63. As this Court has already indicated, impunity signifies “the total lack of investigation, prosecution, capture, trial and conviction of those responsible for violations of the rights protected by the American Convention,”24 and [...] the State has the obligation to use all the legal means at its disposal to combat that situation, since impunity fosters chronic recidivism of human rights violations and total defenselessness of victims and their relatives25. 64. Consequently, the State has the obligation to investigation the human rights violations that have been determined in this case and prosecute those responsible in order to avoid impunity. 65. Article 25 of the American Convention establishes: 1. Everyone has the right to simple and prompt recourse, or any other effective recourse, to a competent court or tribunal for protection against acts that violate his fundamental rights recognized by the constitution or laws of the state concerned or by this Convention, even though such violation may have been committed by persons acting in the course of their official duties. 2. The States Parties undertake: a. to ensure that any person claiming such remedy shall have his rights determined by the competent authority provided for by the legal system of the state; b. to develop the possibilities of judicial remedy; and c. to ensure that the competent authorities shall enforce such remedies when granted. 23 Cf. Villagrán Morales et al. case. Reparations (Article 63(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights). Judgment of May 26, 2001. Series C No. 77, para. 100; Suárez Rosero case. Reparations, supra note 7, para. 79; and El Amparo case. Reparations, supra note 7, para. 61. 24 Cf. Ivcher Bronstein case, supra note 1, para. 186; The Constitutional Court case, supra note 1, para. 123; and Bámaca Velásquez case. Judgment of November 25, 2000. Series C No. 70, para. 211. 25 Cf. Paniagua Morales et al. case. Judgment of March 8, 1998. Series C No. 37, para. 173; Loayza Tamayo case. Reparations, supra note 7, para. 170; and Blake case. Reparations, supra note 7, para. 64.